How Often Should Mythical Climbs be Used in Grand Tours?

[hfer07]

Mythical Mountains should be used every 2 to 4 years & exclusively for stage finishes--I hate to see cols like Galibier, Tourmalet, Aprica, Mortirolo, etc, being waisted in the middle of a stage without any purpose at all. I also agreed with some folks here about new routes and mountain passages being discovered or made available for racing every year to balance the use of the traditional ones--for example in 08 the Tour used a new mountain called Prato Nevoso-witch was amazing and now seems to be forgotten without any reason...

 

[Kwibus]

Looking at those epic mountains Descender posted and at the same time thinking "These mountains were never ever used in the Vuelta before??"
Is this for real?

I drool together with Descender only thinking about watching the riders having to take on these mountains.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Mythical Mountains should be used every 2 to 4 years & exclusively for stage finishes--I hate to see cols like Galibier, Tourmalet, Aprica, Mortirolo, etc, being waisted in the middle of a stage without any purpose at all. I also agreed with some folks here about new routes and mountain passages being discovered or made available for racing every year to balance the use of the traditional ones--for example in 08 the Tour used a new mountain called Prato Nevoso-witch was amazing and now seems to be forgotten without any reason...

Mortirolo has never been a stage finish. There isn't room at the top. Mortirolo stages almost invariably finish on the Aprica, which in itself is not much of a climb at all, however, the sheer pain of riding uphill again after the Mortirolo means that the big gaps open up on very shallow rises there.

Climbs mid-stage do serve purposes - compare an all-flat-then-climb stage to a multiple-climb stage to see the difference that cumulative climbing makes. If these mythical climbs have to be used as regularly as you say, and have to be MTFs, then that makes the routes of the GTs very formulaic, because there isn't really the option for many other MTFs without turning into a farcically difficult route - which also hinders the finding and utilising of new climbs. And then, if one of these new climbs becomes a mythical climb, like Zonc and Angliru have done, and Kronplatz is on its way to becoming, then that's another one to add to the group; find two or three more, and your route becomes almost as fixed as a race like the Volta a Portugal, which always focuses around Senhora da Graça and Torre, or the Österreichrundfahrt, always focused on Kitzbüheler Horn and the Großglockner.

 

[Descender]

Looking at those epic mountains Descender posted and at the same time thinking "These mountains were never ever used in the Vuelta before??"
Is this for real?

I drool together with Descender only thinking about watching the riders having to take on these mountains.

100% true, none of those climbs has ever featured in the Vuelta. And there are more, like Haza del Lino, Llano de las Ovejas, Collado Puerco (all passes)... not including those with sterrato, like Trobaniello or Rassos-Fumanya, or those with partly deteriorated roads, like Turo de l'Home. Or even HC sides that have been descended but not climbed, like Cobertoria via Pola de Lena.

With those climbs I posted, combined with others, we could make some nice little stages like these (to post just a few examples, credit to the PRC):

 

[Skip Madness]

There's also the matter of defining what "mythical" is. Some would stick the Peyresourde or Navacerrada in that category precisely because of their historical frequency above their actual difficulty. I'd also describe the Izoard as mythical as much for the Casse Déserte as its difficulty, and there are other climbs with aesthetic features which make them stick in people's minds more than other perhaps harder climbs might. But I think most of us are on the same page when we're talking about Zoncolan etc. instead.

Mythical Mountains should be used every 2 to 4 years & exclusively for stage finishes--I hate to see cols like Galibier, Tourmalet, Aprica, Mortirolo, etc, being waisted in the middle of a stage without any purpose at all. I also agreed with some folks here about new routes and mountain passages being discovered or made available for racing every year to balance the use of the traditional ones--for example in 08 the Tour used a new mountain called Prato Nevoso-witch was amazing and now seems to be forgotten without any reason...

The idea that climbs like these need to come as MTFs seems madness for the reasons LS covered. The Mortirolo wrecked the field this year despite not being an MTF. It adds a different dimension to racing. I don't see how a finish on the Tourmalet could be preferable to Tourmalet+Luz-Ardiden. Plus I'm not really sure Aprica can be stuck in the same category as those other three climbs...

Perhaps the Vuelta could consider hopping across the border into Portugal once in a while, I'd love to see the Vuelta climb to Torre.

An excursion into Portugal has been rumoured for next year, but I'm not sure how much weight there is behind it, especially with the economic problems Portugal is facing.

Looking at those epic mountains Descender posted and at the same time thinking "These mountains were never ever used in the Vuelta before??"
Is this for real?

This page at PRC is a list of Spanish passes that would more-or-less be special category (I'd quibble over a few choices, but they're all tough). Besides the ones Descender mentioned, check out La Marta, the other two ascents of Fonte da Cova, Fumanya-Pradell and Haza del Lino as well as the others. The Vuelta hasn't used those from their toughest (or in most cases any) sides, which is why some people get wound up about the race. EDIT: ^^as Descender demonstrates

 

[The Hitch]

You really love Zoncolan, don't you?

I love the crowds. Seeing hundreds of thousands on a climb can make a boring race fun (other than that the Tourmalet when i wanted slightly more from al and andy)

Having a mountain outside the Tour that gets such big crowds is what does it for me.

 

[Izzy eviel]

3-4 years is probably the ideal, maybe closer to 3.

Would the Ventoux be the Ventoux if we raced it every year? In the eyes of the spectators it's a climb to be feared, how can we fear it if the pros keep waltzing up it every year?

Side question - would it be possible to climb the Ventoux twice in a stage? That could be epic if it's possible.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yes, you can climb it twice. Assuming you're climbing it from Sault as per tradition, it's quite a long way round. What you could do is climb the easier side (from Mont Serein as in Paris-Nice 2008) to the Col des Tempêtes (the normal Mont Ventoux finish), descend to Le Chalet Reynard, then turn right, away from the normal ascent, towards Jas-des-Melettes, then left across narrow roads to the Col de Notre-Dame-des-Abeilles, to Sault, and then climb Mont Ventoux from the normal side.

 

[hfer07]

Mortirolo has never been a stage finish. There isn't room at the top. Mortirolo stages almost invariably finish on the Aprica, which in itself is not much of a climb at all, however, the sheer pain of riding uphill again after the Mortirolo means that the big gaps open up on very shallow rises there.

Climbs mid-stage do serve purposes - compare an all-flat-then-climb stage to a multiple-climb stage to see the difference that cumulative climbing makes. If these mythical climbs have to be used as regularly as you say, and have to be MTFs, then that makes the routes of the GTs very formulaic, because there isn't really the option for many other MTFs without turning into a farcically difficult route - which also hinders the finding and utilising of new climbs. And then, if one of these new climbs becomes a mythical climb, like Zonc and Angliru have done, and Kronplatz is on its way to becoming, then that's another one to add to the group; find two or three more, and your route becomes almost as fixed as a race like the Volta a Portugal, which always focuses around Senhora da Graça and Torre, or the Österreichrundfahrt, always focused on Kitzbüheler Horn and the Großglockner.

that's why I entirely agree with new MTF being incorporated continuously, so the traditional ones cannot be "overused"

The idea that climbs like these need to come as MTFs seems madness for the reasons LS covered. The Mortirolo wrecked the field this year despite not being an MTF. It adds a different dimension to racing. I don't see how a finish on the Tourmalet could be preferable to Tourmalet+Luz-Ardiden. Plus I'm not really sure Aprica can be stuck in the same category as those other three climbs...

I agree with you but the point that i'm trying to make is how Iconic Mountain passes must be used purposely-unlike the following example:

Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of having the Col d'Aspin & the Tourmalet in a stage like that?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

that's why I entirely agree with new MTF being incorporated continuously, so the traditional ones cannot be "overused"

But that's also why making sure that the classics are used every two or three years and are always MTFs is a bad idea - because it then leaves so few options for further exploration.

Take the Giro. If you have to do a Stelvio stage, a Mortirolo-Aprica stage and a Gavia stage, and they must all be MTFs, they're very close together, which limits stage design (and the ability of the race to truly be a Giro d'Italia, rather than just a Giro d'part of Italia). If you then say that the Colle delle Finestre and Zoncolán are mythical climbs as they are on their way to becoming as much, then that's 5 MTFs you're locking in. How much scope is there for exploration of new territory?

 

[Matthijs]

that's why I entirely agree with new MTF being incorporated continuously, so the traditional ones cannot be "overused"


I agree with you but the point that i'm trying to make is how Iconic Mountain passes must be used purposely-unlike the following example:

Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of having the Col d'Aspin & the Tourmalet in a stage like that?

stage win for Freire?

 

[Skip Madness]

Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of having the Col d'Aspin & the Tourmalet in a stage like that?

Well, it depends. In the context of the Tour that stage featured in, it's nothing but a pathetic nod to the existence of the Pyrenees. But in a more rounded Tour, it would be a stage where the severity of the climbs would help to shape what would in all likelihood be a breakaway (it was also this in the Tour it was in, but unfortunately it came at the expense of a proper Pyrenean stage).

But surely the point of the Tourmalet in a stage like this is much more apparent:

 

[Christian]

Yes, you can climb it twice. Assuming you're climbing it from Sault as per tradition, it's quite a long way round. What you could do is climb the easier side (from Mont Serein as in Paris-Nice 2008) to the Col des Tempêtes (the normal Mont Ventoux finish), descend to Le Chalet Reynard, then turn right, away from the normal ascent, towards Jas-des-Melettes, then left across narrow roads to the Col de Notre-Dame-des-Abeilles, to Sault, and then climb Mont Ventoux from the normal side.

Ugh. Just had a really frustrating encounter trying to insert pictures from wikipedia to support my assumptions. Sorry but therefore the links will have to be enough. Anyways I was going to say:

I'm not sure I can follow you here. First off, I'd consider the route from Bédoin the traditional way, as it's the hardest and most often used in the Tour. I would also say that the Col des Tempêtes is not the actual finish of the Ventoux, but around 2 to 3 km down towards Bédoin.

If you took the route from Malaucène, I think you would arrive on the top and not on the Col des Tempêtes. I am not sure whether there are two possible routes from Sault, as you suggest (or at least that's how I understand it; sorry if it's a misunderstanding).
However, even if that is the case, you would have to go at least the same 6 kms up that you went down before (coming from the top, going to Chalet Reynard); just to finish at the same place that you crossed in the other direction coming from Malaucène.

This would mean a nightmare for the organization in my opinion.

You seem to be quite well informed so I'm happy to be proven wrong, however, here are the documents I found supporting my point of view:

a) Col des Tempêtes is not the finish:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Mont_Ventoux_4_by_JM_Rosier.jpg

(1) Summit
(2) Col des Tempêtes

b) The route from Malaucène arrives at the summit and not at Col des Tempêtes:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Mont_Ventoux_map-fr.svg

So basically the way I see it is you'd have to go up the same way you went down before.

 

[The Hitch]

Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of having the Col d'Aspin & the Tourmalet in a stage like that?

Such a stage could work very well if they gave 10, or even 20k or 30 of flat after the descent and then finished the stage.

10 if they want to copy the success of the Madeline which was probably the best stage of the tour last year, certainatly by far and away the best mountain stage.

But even if they had 30k of flat after the Tourmalet, the Tourmalet is such a hard mountain, that people would probably attack up it, and certainatly someone like LLS without gc interests, could have a go on the descent.

But 50k after the descent is just too much. As a result, no one even bothers. Was this the stage Feiliu won?

This stage will be very interesting. I fear most of the gc guys will wait for Luiz Ardenne, but since its in the 2nd week, there will still be a large number of guys only a few minutes down on the mj. Seeing as the Tourmalet is the hc, and has a lenghty descent there will therefore be a large number of guys who might as well have a go on the Tourmalet.
These guys will therefore be very dangerous and it will be difficult for Lux and Liqui and Eus to control them, while fighting it out among themselves.

Maybe this will be the day Amets Txurruka finally meets his destiny. Certainatly wouldnt be a bad move from Eus to use one of their better climbers just to push it up there, in order to give Sammy some cards, though Nieve might be better.

Anyway point is, hc mountains with a descent and then finish should definately be used, and the mythological factor is not so strong. They dont need to use the same climbs every year, but the problem is there are only so many with a town within 30k from the mt, willing to pay to host a stage.

PS.
Please god (aka Prudehome ) invite those colombia es passion nuts to the Tour. They would be awesome on this Tourmalet stage.

 

[Arnout]

Out of my memory I think Casar or Luis Leon Sanchez won that stage. I remember it as Valjavec attacking with a few km to go, Astarloza chasing and LL Sanchez thinking he had an easy day, but in the end I think Casar was victorious.

Feillu won the stage uphill to Arcalis, where "the team was not the problem".

Nieve won't do the Tour next year, he will be the companion of Anton in the Giro and Vuelta.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Ugh. Just had a really frustrating encounter trying to insert pictures from wikipedia to support my assumptions. Sorry but therefore the links will have to be enough. Anyways I was going to say:

I'm not sure I can follow you here. First off, I'd consider the route from Bédoin the traditional way, as it's the hardest and most often used in the Tour. I would also say that the Col des Tempêtes is not the actual finish of the Ventoux, but around 2 to 3 km down towards Bédoin.

The Col des Tempêtes isn't the exact summit, but it's only 3-400m down rather than 2-3km. (just before the final left, before the final sharp right).

Using Bédoin makes the loop to do it twice easier but still covering a long loop.

If you took the route from Malaucène, I think you would arrive on the top and not on the Col des Tempêtes. I am not sure whether there are two possible routes from Sault, as you suggest (or at least that's how I understand it; sorry if it's a misunderstanding).

You'd go over the top and cross the Col des Tempêtes on the way down.

From Sault you can either go on the main road through Le Ventouret to Le Chalet Reynard, or you can go to the Col de Notre-Dame-des-Abeilles, and turn right on back roads to Jas-de-Melettes, where you join the Bédoin route. I was proposing going to Sault via Jas-de-Melettes then taking the Le Ventouret road back.

However, even if that is the case, you would have to go at least the same 6 kms up that you went down before (coming from the top, going to Chalet Reynard); just to finish at the same place that you crossed in the other direction coming from Malaucène.

This would mean a nightmare for the organization in my opinion.

Pretty much, yes - but it's exactly what the Vuelta did when they climbed both sides of the Navacerrada en route to Bola del Mundo, and the Giro featured a little loop-de-loop around Bormio between the Gavia and Bormio 2000 in 2004. I was just trying to come up with an idea that's a bit different than just looping around and doing the same climb, by changing it up a bit. It's probably more logical to just do the circuit around Ventoux, but the ASO seem far more resistant than RCS or Unipublic to doing circuits.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Out of my memory I think Casar or Luis Leon Sanchez won that stage. I remember it as Valjavec attacking with a few km to go, Astarloza chasing and LL Sanchez thinking he had an easy day, but in the end I think Casar was victorious.

Feillu won the stage uphill to Arcalis, where "the team was not the problem".

Nieve won't do the Tour next year, he will be the companion of Anton in the Giro and Vuelta.

That was the previous stage, another waste of a Pyrenean stage.

The one to Tarbes was won by Fedrigo in a two-up sprint with Pellizotti. They finished 38" ahead of the first of three pelotons, with Óscar Freire and José Joaquin Rojas sprinting for third.

 

[Christian]

The Col des Tempêtes isn't the exact summit, but it's only 3-400m down rather than 2-3km. (just before the final left, before the final sharp right).

Using Bédoin makes the loop to do it twice easier but still covering a long loop.


You'd go over the top and cross the Col des Tempêtes on the way down.

From Sault you can either go on the main road through Le Ventouret to Le Chalet Reynard, or you can go to the Col de Notre-Dame-des-Abeilles, and turn right on back roads to Jas-de-Melettes, where you join the Bédoin route. I was proposing going to Sault via Jas-de-Melettes then taking the Le Ventouret road back.


Pretty much, yes - but it's exactly what the Vuelta did when they climbed both sides of the Navacerrada en route to Bola del Mundo, and the Giro featured a little loop-de-loop around Bormio between the Gavia and Bormio 2000 in 2004. I was just trying to come up with an idea that's a bit different than just looping around and doing the same climb, by changing it up a bit. It's probably more logical to just do the circuit around Ventoux, but the ASO seem far more resistant than RCS or Unipublic to doing circuits.

OK I see what you mean. But I think we agree that it is impossible to do the Ventoux twice without doing the loop or without doing at least one segment twice.

My suggestion: Start the ascent in Malaucène, then go down to Sault, from Sault to Villes-sur-Auzon through the Gorges de la Nesque (gorgeous touristic route), from there to Bédoin, and then finish where the road from Bédoin meets the one from Sault. Unfortunately the windy final 6 kms would not be climbed, only descended, but that would leave us with around 14 quite brutal kms. It might be a little weird though since it wouldn't be a mountain-top finish, but more a finish 2/3rds up the mountain

 

[Eric8-A]

Anybody wonder how long it will take for a GT to end on top of Olympus Mons?

 

[WinterRider]

If you want to describe a climb as mythical, then it should really be more than 3 years between. I know that in pro sports 3 years can be a long time, but to be mythical I don't think it's long enough.

If you look at the Olympics and World Cup, I think they nailed it at 4 years. But I picked 5 years since we're going for mythical.

Now if you want to discuss just really good climbs, 3 years is fine, but I don't think anything that appears every 3 years will qualify as mythical, unless its a classic race for the ages every time.

Remember the old saying, familiarity breeds contempt. A mythical climb needs to be held in awe, rather that be well known as a climb they do every three years.

 

[montagna lunga]

Every GT has lots of "mythic climbs" to choose from every year, seems to me that "they" already include (at least) one in every GT each year already, don't "they"?

IMO the poll is poorly-composed, perhaps well-intentioned but still dopey.

 

[pedaling squares]

I agree with you but the point that i'm trying to make is how Iconic Mountain passes must be used purposely-unlike the following example:

Can anyone explain to me what's the purpose of having the Col d'Aspin & the Tourmalet in a stage like that?

That's my main concern too. Not so much how often they are used, but how they are used. There is no point including a 'mythical' mountain or pass if you are going to neuter it by ensuring the riders cross it en masse or have ample time to regroup. I prefer a couple of years between returns to the same area, but I can live with the same mountain for several consecutive years if it means a good race.

 

[Anonymous]

Mythical? or Legendary? Mythical of course being fictitious

 

[pedaling squares]

Mythical? or Legendary? Mythical of course being fictitious

Exactly. Think Riis on Hautacam or Armstrong on Sestriere or Pantani on L'Alpe d'Huez. Mythical.

 

[kurtinsc]

I voted every year... but I'm not sure I mean that.

To me, a GT should have certain parts that are "regular"... things that show up every year. A variable route is good... but a little consistency is good as well.

For the Tour, we always have the finish in Paris. That's good.

We always seem to have a rest day in Pau. I kind of like that too.

And I think we SHOULD always have the Alpe d'Huez. For whatever reason, that's the climb I view as most indicative of the Tour. I want to see it in every version of the race. To a certain extent, I'd like that climb RESERVED for the Tour.